Paper
More Isn't Always Better: Balancing Decision Accuracy and Conformity Pressures in Multi-AI Advice
Authors
Yuta Tsuchiya, Yukino Baba
Abstract
Just as people improve decision-making by consulting diverse human advisors, they can now also consult with multiple AI systems. Prior work on group decision-making shows that advice aggregation creates pressure to conform, leading to overreliance. However, the conditions under which multi-AI consultation improves or undermines human decision-making remain unclear. We conducted experiments with three tasks in which participants received advice from panels of AIs. We varied panel size, within-panel consensus, and the human-likeness of presentation. Accuracy improved for small panels relative to a single AI; larger panels yielded no gains. The level of within-panel consensus affected participants' reliance on AI advice: High consensus fostered overreliance; a single dissent reduced pressure to conform; wide disagreement created confusion and undermined appropriate reliance. Human-like presentations increased perceived usefulness and agency in certain tasks, without raising conformity pressure. These findings yield design implications for presenting multi-AI advice that preserve accuracy while mitigating conformity.
Metadata
Related papers
Vibe Coding XR: Accelerating AI + XR Prototyping with XR Blocks and Gemini
Ruofei Du, Benjamin Hersh, David Li, Nels Numan, Xun Qian, Yanhe Chen, Zhongy... • 2026-03-25
Comparing Developer and LLM Biases in Code Evaluation
Aditya Mittal, Ryan Shar, Zichu Wu, Shyam Agarwal, Tongshuang Wu, Chris Donah... • 2026-03-25
The Stochastic Gap: A Markovian Framework for Pre-Deployment Reliability and Oversight-Cost Auditing in Agentic Artificial Intelligence
Biplab Pal, Santanu Bhattacharya • 2026-03-25
Retrieval Improvements Do Not Guarantee Better Answers: A Study of RAG for AI Policy QA
Saahil Mathur, Ryan David Rittner, Vedant Ajit Thakur, Daniel Stuart Schiff, ... • 2026-03-25
MARCH: Multi-Agent Reinforced Self-Check for LLM Hallucination
Zhuo Li, Yupeng Zhang, Pengyu Cheng, Jiajun Song, Mengyu Zhou, Hao Li, Shujie... • 2026-03-25
Raw Data (Debug)
{
"raw_xml": "<entry>\n <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22152v1</id>\n <title>More Isn't Always Better: Balancing Decision Accuracy and Conformity Pressures in Multi-AI Advice</title>\n <updated>2026-03-23T16:17:05Z</updated>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22152v1' rel='alternate' type='text/html'/>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.22152v1' rel='related' title='pdf' type='application/pdf'/>\n <summary>Just as people improve decision-making by consulting diverse human advisors, they can now also consult with multiple AI systems. Prior work on group decision-making shows that advice aggregation creates pressure to conform, leading to overreliance. However, the conditions under which multi-AI consultation improves or undermines human decision-making remain unclear. We conducted experiments with three tasks in which participants received advice from panels of AIs. We varied panel size, within-panel consensus, and the human-likeness of presentation. Accuracy improved for small panels relative to a single AI; larger panels yielded no gains. The level of within-panel consensus affected participants' reliance on AI advice: High consensus fostered overreliance; a single dissent reduced pressure to conform; wide disagreement created confusion and undermined appropriate reliance. Human-like presentations increased perceived usefulness and agency in certain tasks, without raising conformity pressure. These findings yield design implications for presenting multi-AI advice that preserve accuracy while mitigating conformity.</summary>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.HC'/>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.AI'/>\n <published>2026-03-23T16:17:05Z</published>\n <arxiv:comment>21 pages, 12 figures, accepted to CHI 2026</arxiv:comment>\n <arxiv:primary_category term='cs.HC'/>\n <author>\n <name>Yuta Tsuchiya</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Yukino Baba</name>\n </author>\n </entry>"
}